Michigan Delegates Should Go to Convention Uncommitted

I'm glad to see Harold Ickes statement today on the uncommitted Michigan delegates. It's what I've been advocating since March:

I think the DNC should remove the penalty from Michigan and Florida and seat the delegates. In Michigan's case, Hillary should get the delegates according to her vote total. The other delegates should remain "uncommitted" and vote how they want when they get to the convention.

Read the rest of my earlier post for the reasons.

< Electability Nevada Style | Overnight Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That is probably (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:04:38 PM EST
    the most sane and logical way to go.  Let those uncommitted decide at the convention.

    Too bad that kinda logic is sorely missing from the braintrusts over at the DNC.

    Michigan should be allowed some delegates (none / 0) (#136)
    by seesdifferent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:46:43 AM EST
    but not shift the balance between Obama and Clinton.
    That is the best way to follow through on the promised penalty without totally excluding Michigan. Same for Florida.

    Thats a great idea cause in America noone (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM EST
    including Obama should get something he hasn't earned yet.....

    I don't know what about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:40:45 PM EST
    Doesn't fall into that category.

    His delegate lead for starters - (none / 0) (#147)
    by minordomo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:07:31 AM EST
    - doesn't fall into that category. Like him or not, but Obama has run a very impressive and effective campaign. His lead was not handed to him on a silver platter.

    The problem with that is (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:05:59 PM EST
    as was discussed on the call, in thr MI delegate selection process, most of the "uncommitted delegates" selected are for Obama.

    In essence he won them all.

    This really does not matter.

    Yes, BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lansing quaker on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    But they go into the convention uncommitted despite personal preferences.

    None of this media meme that could result with "Uncommitted = Obama."  Because it's not.


    Then it's win win for the Obama camp (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:11:05 PM EST
    The get to do the right thing and they get all the votes except for Hillary's. I don't see what the problem is.

    exactly n/t (none / 0) (#153)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:00:41 AM EST
    not so (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM EST
    Hillary gets the delegates and votes now who voted for her. That's helpful to her regardless of what the uncommitted do in August.

    Changing the rules (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by manish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM EST
    Ickes is advocating for changing rules that he himself voted for.  If we're going to say seat the MI delegation, fine..but don't pretend that the election in MI was on the up-and-up.  Many people stayed home because they thought that it would be a beauty contest.  Others voted in the Republican primary..why?  Because they thought their votes wouldn't count as Mr. Ickes himself voted on as a DNC member.

    Having said that, there has to be a way to seat the delegates that is fair to Obama and simply saying that he chose to take his name off isn't good enough.  It doesn't consider that the rules at the time said MI wasn't going to be seated..again rules, that Ickes and 11 other Clinton supporters voted in favour of.


    This again? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:35:52 PM EST
    This surely must get old. Rules, rules, rules with no consideration for what the rules actually were.

    That aside, please give me a scenario which you think is fair.  I am very interested.


    fair (none / 0) (#115)
    by manish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:33 AM EST
    The fairest thing to do would to be stick to the rules as they were adopted by Ickes and 11 other Clinton supporters on the DNC.  That is that MI shouldn't get seated.  

    Given that there won't be a re-vote (complicated by the fact that MI is an open primary meaning some Democratic voters voted in the Republican primary), nothing is going to be totally fair, but can take into account what has happened and how things played out.  However, in the spirit of wanting to seat the MI delegation, we should consider splitting the delegates 50-50.  Alternatively, you can give uncommitted to Obama and seat everyone with half a vote.  Or commission a Gallup poll of Democrats and seat them based on that.


    Really? (none / 0) (#144)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:42:44 AM EST
    These are your solutions?  First of all, a 50-50 split is insulting to voters, and anyone else with a brain can figure out the reason for that.  I am still hopeful that you could imagine why.  Second, commission a Gallup poll?  This also is insulting to voters and anyone who has followed any polling can see how wrong they often are.  Polls are samples, they are not representative of actual votes.

    The only solution you present which isn't 100% insulting is to give uncommitted to Obama (a huge compromise since he wasn't the only uncommitted candidate) and seat everyone with half a vote.  OK this is 50% insulting but it's a point you could at east argue with a straight face without stumbling over yourself completely.

    Arguing to completely ignore all the votes in Michigan, as your other plan to just not seat the delegates and ignore all voters and risk losing in November because of it?  Not so much.

    The argument that following the rules (which always had the option to be changed) over counting actual votes cast when the election is so close? Well, I'll leave that argument to you.


    And many went to the polls (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by LatinoVoter on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:39:18 PM EST
    and voted for uncommitted because they saw their elected officials cut commercials telling them not to give up their vote and vote for "uncommitted." And many went because they got fliers or knocks on the door or saw on the radio, tv and in their paper groups like Detroiters for Uncommitted Voters who were supporting Obama telling them not to surrender their vote for choose uncommitted.

    Do you ever get tired of being wrong? (4.00 / 4) (#85)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:22:55 PM EST
    There is no way to seat the MI delegates so that it is "fair" to Obama  and who said what when is so totally irrelevant. The only fairness the Dems. should be concerned about is fairness to the voters. 55% of the voters picked Clinton -- thus, it is fair that their voices are heard and they are seated at the convention as pledged for Clinton. The rest voted uncommitted -- thus, it is fair that their voices are heard and they are seated at the convention as uncommitted. This is really elementary democratic principles here, not rocket science -- count the votes.  

    fair? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by manish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:25 PM EST
    How is that fair to the MI voters who chose to stay home or vote in the Republican primary because they thought the vote was a beauty contest?

    They made a choice (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:08:45 AM EST
    to stay home or vote Republican.  No one forced them to, and actually they were highly encouraged in the media and on the radio and TV to go vote.  A record number of people DID vote in Michigan, so you can't say people weren't interested in a "beauty contest" - not true.

    If they chose not to vote or if they voted Republican (which they have that choice every election), I saw tough luck.


    Fairness, or lack thereof (none / 0) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:35:46 AM EST
    There's really no way to be fair to people who stayed home, not at this point (barring a revote).  Taking away from the votes of the people who did vote won't correct the unfairness to the ones that didn't.

    You can't apportion anyone based on polls.  There's a reason why we have elections and not polls to decide who's the nominee.  You can't assume any particular number of Uncommitteds really 'meant' to vote for Obama, not matter how much he and Edwards told their supporters to do so.  You can't decide an election based on what people 'probably' did or 'meant' to do in the voting booth.  You can only count what they did do.

    Counting the votes and letting the delegates go as Uncommitted isn't exactly fair at this point, given that most are already for Obama, but it's as close to being fair without being actually unfair as is possible at this point.  (if that makes sense)

    The low-info, white and bitter 'aging' feminist in me says, screw that, he knew what he was doing taking his name off the ticket, if the DNC is so hell-bent on punishing all these 'offenders', he should share in the punishment because his actions were calculated to eff things up just the way they ended up.  But although he really should be 'punished'  (btw, what's with all this punishment being meted out, what are we, Republicans?), you can't do that at the expense of the people who did vote.  I find it helps if I think of them as 'voters' rather than 'Obama supporters.'  FWIW.


    Just as you can't read the MI voters' minds - (none / 0) (#154)
    by minordomo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:03:48 AM EST
    - you can't read Obama's mind regarding his motivation and that of Edwards and the others who took their names off the ballot for their motivations for doing so.

    And none of the candidates deserve to be "punished" for taking their name off the ballot in an election they were assured did not count. Actually, at the time the question was why Clinton kept her name on, not the other way around.

    Selectively revising what happened - keep everything as is but pretend it was a legitimate election, and how dare they have taken their names off the ballot - simply does not work. If the delegates are counted (which amounts to changing the rules in retrospect), an attempt has to be made to approximate the result had it actually been legit. That is what the committee will be dealing with on May 30/31.


    Whose fault is that? (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by goldberry on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:54:43 AM EST
    Ickes didn't force Obama and Edwards to drop out.  They did that of their own volition so they could game the system. It's hard to argue that they should now benefit from that when their intention all along was to screw Michigan.

    we have more to consider than (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by seesdifferent on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:48:18 AM EST
    what is best for Hillary.

    It's symbolic (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:15:23 PM EST
    if they would vote for Obama then why not agree to it?

    I'm betting (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:22:49 PM EST
    it has something to do with waiting until August to be coronated. That said, it seems like a no brainer to me to quit whining and say ok to this. We're talking about a 5% difference in delegates than what they were earlier asking to seat the delegates.

    It's important (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:42:47 PM EST
    Candidates pulling their name off the ballot was, IMO, the thing that made this situation almost impossible to resolve equitably.

    FL can be solved in any number of ways, including a 50% penalty.  MI is much tougher because the only way we can estimate Obama's vote is with exit polling.  In the future, if this situation comes up again, it's in the DNC's interest to avoid more stunts where candidates pull their names to try and keep the election from being counted.

    Sending the delegates to the convention as uncommitted avoids the absurd result of giving Obama no support from Michigan, but it does send a message for the future that you'd better leave your name on the ballot if you want delegates.  It does have a deterrent effect to some extent.


    But the delegates have already been selected (4.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
    and Obama's slate won virtually all of the uncommitted slots.

    This is all just semantics.


    Words are important (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    and so are actions. Personally, Obama ought to get used to the idea that this is going to convention because that is exactly where this is headed.

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:19 PM EST
    But I think it sends the right message for the future, without being unduly punitive in the present.

    Future candidates would not be able to assume that if they remove their name from the ballot, the state party will be gracious enough to give delegate positions to their supporters.


    I think the point is that his vaunted (none / 0) (#41)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:52:35 PM EST
    lead in pledged delegates would be in danger under this scenario. This makes his rationale for the SD's vanish, and makes a convention fight more likely.

    Clinton said she would take it to (none / 0) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:46 PM EST
    the convention if FL and MI weren't treated fairly.  If Obama says count them/seat them as is, that reason for a brokered convention is gone.

    But then the remaining SD's.... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by cosbo on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:57 PM EST
    can now vote for her by the majority, thereby overtaking him. My instinct is that she is going to win one way or another, however hard she  has to play. In my view she holds more power than he does,  because her voters will really vote for McCain. I do believe that they will. I think Obama knows that too.

    The real question has not really been whether Obama can win the GE...I personally do not think he can, the real question is: Would the DNC & Co prefer a McCain presidency over a Clinton presidency?


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:58:17 AM EST
    Her voters definitely either will not vote or will vote McCain. The question is whether the party even cares. I do wonder.

    You better believe... (none / 0) (#107)
    by AX10 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:44:48 PM EST
    that they will go to McCain, because that is what will happen.

    but the race might be so close that (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    a convention vote is necessary. If Obama does not have the lead in pledged delegates after the last primary, what other outcome more likely?

    I thought I read some of those (none / 0) (#79)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:18:18 PM EST
    may not be so committed to Obama.

    At least they are not just being awarded (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:52:04 PM EST
    The people are getting to make their choice, even if for Obama, and then there can be no discussion of just giving the votes to him. He gets them but not just pinned to his chest. Ouch.

    But some of them were for Edwards. I imagine a (none / 0) (#11)
    by derridog on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:17:03 PM EST
    substantial portion. Plus, Biden,Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel were on the ballot,as  I recall.  Do the uncommitted votes include their voters?

    No Edwardss delegates (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:19:00 PM EST
    None. A few went Clinton. like 2 I think. but in essence Obama got all the Uncommitteds.

    Well if that is known - (none / 0) (#148)
    by minordomo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:15:15 AM EST
    - then why not call those delegates what they are: the "uncommitted" delegates who are Obama's are allocated to Obama, the ones who are Clinton's are allocated to her. Sounds about as fair as you can get in this scenario.

    (I don't quite understand why there were "uncommitted" delegates who went Clinton when Clinton was actually on the ballot.)


    Me neither. (none / 0) (#162)
    by derridog on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:20:44 PM EST
    That's how it was framed at the outset, too. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by lansing quaker on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:07:52 PM EST
    I remember Obama supporters over at the MI blogs saying that by voting Uncommitted, delegates are free to vote Obama since they have no ties.

    That's why voters VOTED Uncommitted rather than just leave the ballot blank or do a write in or go for second (listed) choice.

    This whole "Give Obama Uncommitted!" is very timely and quite revisionist.

    Absolutely true (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Emma on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:33:48 PM EST
    It was repeated again and again in the run-up to the MI primary

    A. Go vote, Delegates will be seated at the Convention;

    B.  Can't vote for Obama or Edwards and can't write them in, so vote uncommitted if you want to vote for one of them;

    C.  Voting uncommitted sends uncommitted delegates to the Convention where they can vote for Obama if they want.

    If you send HRC delegates and uncommitted delegates, every voter gets what they were told they were going to get and every candidate gets what he/she earned.

    But, it won't happen unless Clinton makes it happen.  The MI Dem Party is pushing the absurd 69/59 split.  I can't write any more emails to the DNC or Sen. Levin or Stabenow or Rep. Dingell.  AFAICT, nobody is listening and nobody seems the least bit interested in protecting the votes - except Clinton.  


    How about sending a pair of shoes? (none / 0) (#111)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:53:39 PM EST
    I've written the DNC, called, emailed, told them to go to halifax when they called me for a donation, I even sent my torn up DEM voter's registration letter with a "Dear John" letter to Howard Dean, so I know how you feel. But, in honor of the May 31 meeting I'm sending a pair of my shoes to the DNC. My mom & cousin are doing it too -- as a message to "walk in our shoes" (we are asking that the shoes be donated to a shelter/charity). Anyway, check it out if you are interested -- it isn't like we have anything to loose, imo.

    That is very cool.....they will be horrified if (none / 0) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM EST
    1000's of pairs of shoes show up at their front door.

    That's what I'm hoping! n/t (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:15:09 AM EST
    I read that write-ins were discarded. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Christy1947 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:18:17 AM EST
    This whole argument is revisionist (none / 0) (#151)
    by minordomo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:12:09 AM EST
    Arguing to have the MI and FL delegates seated is one big revisionist argument. And quite a one-sided one: count the election as if it were a completely normal election, but don't account for anything else.

    Looks Like There Is Some Buyer's Remorse (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:08:05 PM EST
    regarding obama and the numbers are rising....and isn't it possible these delegates might just change their minds after watching obama on the downhill slide?

    That's good point (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:28:31 PM EST
    today there was a superdelegate from Guam that switched from Obama to Clinton:

    There's a Switch


    This is what Obama is afraid of (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Kathy on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:01 PM EST
    and why he is fighting FL and MI and Clinton getting the popular vote.  It eats up more time, and he can't afford that, because erosion takes place over time.  From Facta's article re: the Guam delegate:

    "After taking a close look at the candidates in this race, I was more impressed by Senator Clinton's ability to meet the challenges of the presidency: end the war, re-invigorate the economy, and provide universal health care," said Lujan. "When she becomes the first woman president, she will think of the people of Guam and their aspirations."

    Just once I'd like to see one of (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    Obama's tricks backfire on him.

    The ONLY way he can claim to be the nominee is to self-declare at this point.

    This nomination needs to go to convention.


    Should definitely go to the convention! (none / 0) (#92)
    by RalphB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:28:41 PM EST
    Very Cool.....Yay Pilar Lujan.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:34:19 PM EST
    Our melanGUAMy baby...

    One small step for humanity...


    I'm surprised Jeralyn (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:59:43 PM EST
    didn't know this.  :)

    I read it on by the fault....someone linked it (none / 0) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:40:57 PM EST
    not a switch (none / 0) (#69)
    by hlr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST
    she was previously uncommitted.

    Here's the breakdown so far of Guam's delegate count and where our 9 votes will go when they're cast on the convention floor during August's Democratic National Convention. Currently Barack Obama will get 4 votes on the floor from Democratic Party of Guam vice-chair Jaimie Paulino, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, Francis Santos, Derrick Quinata, Hope Cristobal, and Therese Terlaje.

    As for Hillary Clinton, she'll pick up 3 votes from national committeewoman Taling Taitano, Arlene Bordallo, Becky Lujan, Dennis Rodriguez, Jr., and Chris Duenas. The island's two superdelegates - Democratic Party of Guam chairperson Pilar Lujan and national committeeman Senator Ben Pangelinan - remain unpledged.


    the way I read (none / 0) (#105)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    was that she had committed to endorsing the winner of the Guam primary which would mean Obama technically but she decided that Clinton was the better candidate. If not a switch technically then certainly a backtracking. Either way it is good news for Clinton, don't you agree?

    Shocking there Huff Post didn't (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:41:35 PM EST
    mention this in their headline.

    I guess Guam (none / 0) (#108)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:49:35 PM EST
    will now join their list of racists, does not matter and hence best ignored.

    Guam is now half Appalachian (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:05:07 AM EST
    and, I guess, half kewl kids.

    Well, they eat rodent brains in (none / 0) (#125)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:20:42 AM EST
    Appalachia and guam---squirrel brains in KY, and bat brains in Guam.

    Been saying this forever - it just seemed (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Anne on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:26:38 PM EST
    like it made the most sense to me.

    I have no problem with uncommitted delegates deciding to support Obama, but I do have a problem with him being given delegates outright.

    As I understand it, in the Michigan primary, writing-in a vote for a candidate who took his name off the ballot was not an option.

    So...the Clinton campaign needs to ask the Obama campaign to point them to an example of any election in this country where a candidate who was not on the ballot, and where writing in was not an option, was awarded votes or delegates.  Ever.  

    And while the Obama camp is scrambling and uh-uh-ing, they should be asked why this is the election where we should set the precedent of gifting delegates - or votes - to someone who did not stand for election.  

    For the life of me, I do not understand why no one from the Obama side of this thing seems to be able to see past their own interests to see the bigger picture of the integrity of the vote, and the credibility of the party.

    Excellent point. (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
    I just made this very point a bit down the thread.  

    They can all go to him at the convention.  But the act of gifting them outright is WRONG. The numbers may be the same, but it is very important as a matter of principle.  


    How about - (none / 0) (#149)
    by minordomo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:24:01 AM EST
    So...the Clinton campaign needs to ask the Obama campaign to point them to an example of any election in this country where a candidate who was not on the ballot, and where writing in was not an option, was awarded votes or delegates.  Ever.  

    How about an election in which more than half the candidates were not on the ballot, all candidates agreed the election would not count and that they would not participate, and that election then counting as if nothing had happened?

    Any examples of that?

    And let's not forget, Obama and the other candidates took their names off the ballot in the context of the election not counting. Some commenters here act as if he did this out of the blue.


    it would be the rational, fair thing to do. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cpinva on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:42:09 PM EST
    which is exactly why it won't happen. the obama campaign is running on fear at the moment (given the current numbers, that's understandable), the last thing he wants is to agree to, essentially, another recognized clinton win. same with FL, which is even more obvious than MI.

    the obama campaign and donna brazille will fight against this tooth and nail.

    Totally agree with Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by bridget on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:44:23 PM EST
    Michigan Delegates Should Go to Convention Uncommitted -
    they are free to vote how they want when they get there

    None of the candidates who took off their names have a case re the uncommitted votes/delegates

    Hillary should get the delegates acc. to her vote count

    Its the right way to do.

    Not sure 'giving' (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:46:16 PM EST
    is the right word.

    As they are considered Uncommitted until such time as they are not uncommitted, they should be able to vote however they see fit--as uncommitteds.

    O/T: Donna Brazile told Tampa Paper (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by catfish on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:47:10 PM EST
    Comparisons of 2008 stripped delegates and Florida 2000 is ludicrous:
    "That's ludicrous," former Gore campaign chairman Bill Daley told Buzz Thursday. "This isn't like we woke up the day of the election and there are total screw-ups. Everybody knew the rules all along."


    Gore campaign manager Donna Brazille, ostensibly neutral and a key member of the panel that stripped Florida of its delegates, also dismissed the 2000 analogy: "It was an unfair comparison given the history of the recount and the politics of state officials who openly defied party rules."

    Shocking to see Obama supporters say that (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:16 PM EST
    More coming tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
    from the "10 Days" campaign?

    Ha. You can take to the bank I bet. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:52:16 PM EST
    Clinton supporter Patterson (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:02:16 PM EST
    didn't agree with Clinton either.  I believe his words were 'a little desperate' with regards to FL.

    She is 'ostensibly neutral'. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:15:33 PM EST
    or 'undeclared' because she wants to unite the party.  Don't forget that. (/snark)

    What Democratic Party has done to Florida and Michigan is atrocious.  

    I even think it may have been intentional to knock Clinton out.  These people are not dummies and the decision (to strip Florida of all delegates) was made in Summer of 2007. By then, they must have known the incredible advantage that Hillary had by organization and name recognition, and were determined to stop big states from voting early.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Obama's campaign was manauvering behind the scenes.

    Didn't Florida effectively determine GOP nominee?  And Democrats insist on insulting them.  I read a comment here that republicans called that bill '537'.  No surprise there.


    That word 'ostensibly' (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:24 PM EST
    is interesting...almost as though people are beginning to figure out that she's not as neutral as she claims.

    Gore's campaign manager... ::sigh:: words escape me.


    I don't even believe she claims she (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:50:35 PM EST
    is neutral. Hasn't she said that she has decided, but that she has not announced?
    The suspense is killing me.

    Jeralyn's post (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:51:54 PM EST
    re: the committee structure had her down as Undecided.

    I don't believe that is what she says on (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    CNN. Can anyone help me out?

    Brazile (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by xspowr on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
    in her infamous exchange with Campbell Brown, said she is "undeclared" not "undecided." Weasel words, as we lawyers like to say. :)



    According to our faithful TV (4.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    watchers here, she sd. she had decided but is undeclared.  

    Exactly what I thought. (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:55:30 PM EST
    That's a preposterous position.

    I just thought (3.50 / 2) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    that the word 'ostensibly' was kinda funny in that context :)

    But justice is not done (4.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:56:35 PM EST
    to the statement itself without the "aren't I clever?" condescending look on her face while she says it.

    It was amazing. (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    In the same segment that she talked about new coalition, and Paul Begala then said, "If the new coalition doesn't include latinos and working class, count me out".

    She said she is not 'undecided', but 'undeclared', because ... 'I am trying to unite my party'.  Whatever. Should it really be up to her?  After all, CNN shouldn't declare her preference for her convenience, but supposedly for viewers' benefit.  


    Yes, she corrects people with (none / 0) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:39:42 PM EST
    "I'm undeclared" when they use undecided with her.

    There's just no point in discussing it (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:50:57 PM EST
    She'll just look down on you and shake her head.

    Is Donna still flapping her gums (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:18:40 PM EST
    You'd figure at this point someone from the Obama sidewould break out some duct tape. I stoppped listening to Donna after she said the "new" coalition would replace latinos and white working class.

    Why, that's how Obama see it (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:43:39 PM EST
    He wants this new party coalition.

    He doesn't want to be responsible for the working class people he doesn't connect with. Or the older generations he could care less about.

    I'm sure the Republicans would like their votes, but not them.


    Absolutely! (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:47:40 PM EST
    Most of the uncommitted are Obama supporters and I think the Clinton campaign was OK with it.  

    Two reasons they should:

    1- Voting is sacred, and the intent of voters is all that matter.  They voted 'uncommitted' and that's how delegates will go to Denver.  Then, they choose who to support.

    2- you can't have your cake and eat it too. Obama, with the assistance of a billion dollar free advertising campaign from the media, is whining that he wasn't on the ballot.  He did that to score politically.  Now he wants half the delegates? That's a new and improved definition of Chutzpa (hope I spelled it right).

    If Obama runs and loses in the GE (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by athyrio on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:55:47 PM EST
    the DNC will be tarred and feathered for sure...The SD's will look totally stupid and the American people have longgggggggggggggg memories....

    THIS (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:25:29 PM EST
    was the DNC's/Dems race to lose.  Due to their sheer stupidity, they will.  They are bound and determined to be the party of losers.

    The DNC needs to look at its own (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:33:43 PM EST
    leadership and the behavior of the party over the past year. They are playing with the rules, not by the rules, and it started when they decided to punish MI and FL voters. If they had done what they should have before January, this mess wouldn't exist.

    But, I believe they did what they did to get exactly what we have now. What the polls were saying about Obama's chances has nothing to do with what the DNC was planning for him.

    This nomination process has been quite telling in how the party is in serious need of an overhaul.


    Uhhh. (none / 0) (#128)
    by gmo on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:23:05 AM EST
    and the American people have longgggggggggggggg memories....

    No, they really don't.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place!


    Even I believe it is the right and fair thing (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:29 PM EST
    to do. But I would be very very surprised if Team Obama agrees to it.

    Look, I agree with Jeralyn. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:07:55 PM EST
    Even if the committee makes the decision, and then all the uncommitted can do what they want, when they want.

    Never mind that Obama took his name off the ballot himself. (His supporters then whined about him not being on the ballot and compared Michigan to Soviet bloc countries... cute!)  It's because you cannot take votes and gift it to someone else.  The ballot said 'uncommitted' and the RULE was that they go to the convention as 'uncommitted', and can choose Obama, if they wish.

    Read Jeralyn's original post.  

    I'm suspicious about this. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    I imagine that it is par for the course for a candidate to be put on the ballot  in a primary without being asked by the campaign.

    Just so this is brought up... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    ...the "solution" to all this is the same as it's always been, and the same as the GOP offered and carried out. Every delegate counts for half. Done deal. Why this wasn't done in the first place? I don't know. Hopefully this idiocy never comes up again and we just have a popular vote primary, schedule up to the states, and it's simple and easy.

    If my history is wrong, correct me.

    That was the rule until amended last August (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:11:03 AM EST
    by Obama backers and rules committee members Ralph Dawson and Prima Donna Brazile.  

    But nothing is as it has "always" been with the DNC.  As it was earlier last year, when state legislatures set dates, is sufficiently significant.  They thought it could cost their voters half of their delegates, but not all.


    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:16:06 PM EST
    Thanks for the usual talking points and lies, yadda yadda.

    I am a bit confused here (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Serene1 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:18:39 PM EST
    I recall Hillary saying that pledged delegates can change their preference in the convention and that they are not bound to vote for the candidate they had pledged for earlier. I also remember reading about Obama reselecting his delegates or something like that in Calif to ensure that only hardcore loyalists became delegates so as to prevent any unwelcome surprise later. I also remember reading the hullaballo created because of the same.

    If that be the case then does it really matter if the uncommitted delegates of MI are seated as uncommitted and allowed to vote in the convention. And if delegates can change their preference in the convention then wouldn't that be the right thing to do? I am a bit confused here.

    Yeah, OK, sure, what ever (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:09 PM EST

    We aren't the fools here buddy (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by angie on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    The only fools in this scenario are the ones who think voting is anathema to democracy.

    No no no (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:32 PM EST
    if Obama loses its OBAMA's fault:

    He has the money
    He has the media
    He has the Establishment firmly behind him
    and he has his supporters.

    Time for you and yours to spread your wings and win one for your guy.  I, along with millions of others, will sit it out.

    Good luck.  You're going to need it.

    The most important thing as regards Obama (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by miriam on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST
    in this whole nightmare is that he seems wholly incapable of making the decision.  He's coasting along assuming that someone else will make it for him.  I think this is absolutely frightening.  He is running to be the leader of the United States.  And he can't decide that giving Hillary Clinton the delegates she won is the smart and possibly the only way to win in November? I honestly cannot imagine why anyone could think this man is qualified to be commander-in-chief.

    When this Florida/Michigan subject was broached to his henchman Jamal on CNN on Tueday night, Jamal admitted the nomination process was not "quite over" (yes, he did).  And that  Obama didn't want to give Hillary the opportunity to "sneak around and come in the back door."  That told me they are worried this thing is not at all wrapped up. But that doesn't excuse Obama's craven inability to make a decision.  He could end this whole Florida/Michigan debacle in a minute.  

    Ickes angle... (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by vrusimov on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:08:12 AM EST
    of course they are, and Ickes has put them on notice that he spurns the idea of giving Obama any credit for his participation...

    do the math...full seating of Florida and no delegates for Obama in Michigan wipes away his pledged delegate lead in its entirety...this seems to be the angle that Ickes is advocating...this would more or less guarantee a convention fight, which seems to be the aim...what else can one deduce from the strategy he is proposing...it's their last ditch because the popular vote argument has little traction considering this dust-up over delegates

    the ugly little truth in all this is the willingness to scapegoat Obama for the entire mess (as you admit yourself)...the Clinton campaign will entertain no agreement where they will lose delegates perceived to be earned because she in fact has a delegate deficiency...won't happen.

    the Obama campaign will entertain no agreement that will seat MI and FL without penalty, guaranteeing that their delegate advantage will persist...think about that for a moment and it is'nt hard to fathom why no consensus for seating has yet been reached...NEITHER side is willing to imperil their current position.

    i don't forsee anymore than a 1/2 delegate seating when the committee meets on May 31...anything else throws this process into a chaos Democrats can ill afford right now...

    the question then becomes how do you legitimize an illegitimate election?...short answer?...you can't...especially when Clinton acknowledges hre previous pledge and that the results wou't count for anything.

    but for arguments sake:

    if Obama's perceived participation is through uncommitteds, which some here have argued, then there's no way that he can be disqualified from claiming a percentage of the uncommitted delegates as stated by Ickes, who, imo has painted himself into an ugly corner, considering his complicity [votes] in this fabulous disaster...the hypocrisy is plainly evident...

    but this is'nt about participation or names on ballots...this primary was deemed illegitimate by RBC vote, in which Ickes and fellow Clinton supporters had sway and leverage to voice any dissent or concerns they had at the time...

    the statue of limitations on the decision made by the RBC did'nt suddenly expire after the Iowa primary...to feign ignorance and peddle moral equivalencies that strain credibility is just morally wrong.


    You appear to be missing (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by miriam on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:49:58 AM EST
    the point. First, no arbitrary rule should prevent the voters in Florida and Michigan from having a say in this nomination--no matter who said what and when they said it. There are 50 states in these United States, not 48.  And Hillary Clinton did voice concern as early as January.  But, most important, do the Democrats want to win in November or not?  Disenfranchising voters of two significant states is not the way to do it.  Lastly, if Clinton supporters continue to perceive that this whole "punishment" of Florida and Michigan was conceived because Clinton was expected to win them, as opposed to no punishment for South Carolina because Obama was expected to win there, you can expect to lose these supporters in November.  Obama will have won a battle but lost the war.    

    Agreed--Obama's lack of leadership is (none / 0) (#155)
    by kempis on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:05:44 AM EST
    truly evident here.

    he seems wholly incapable of making the decision.  He's coasting along assuming that someone else will make it for him.  I think this is absolutely frightening.

    Yes indeed. You'd think the media would be covering the difference in their styles: Hillary is out front on decisions, arguing for herself, presenting rationales; Obama just smiles and ducks and lets "his people" deal. This is SO GWB it ain't funny.


    Obama took his name off the MI ballot, so... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:52 AM EST
    Why then, did he and Edwards urge their supporters to vote as "uncommitted"? Isn't that an inarguably purposeful ploy to wreak havoc with the results?

    There's some interesting info about all of that at this LINK. It shows that Obama supporters, like Rep. John Conyers (radio ad), actually campaigned on his behalf in MI for the "uncommitted" option.

    By the time all of this is said and done, will there be even 'a few good men' who haven't befouled themselves in 'support' of Obama.

    Follow the will of the voters. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    Was there any exit polling done at the time to see who the "uncommitted" voters were for? Presumably some were for Obama, some for Edwards, and so forth.

    We have to be consistent here. It doesn't make sense to simultaneously demand that the will of the voters be the last word, but then pretend that absolutely no-one in Michigan was supporting Obama or Edwards.

    I disagree with using exit polls (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:52 PM EST
    I think it sets a very bad precedent.  Not even because exit polls are frequently wrong (Hillary overperformed MA exit polls by nearly 10 points. I am sure Obama has done so in a few other states), but because they are not valid as a measure of voter intention.

    Voting is sacred. Let it remain so.  Let the uncommitted go to convention, and if they all are for Obama, that's all good.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#113)
    by Llelldorin on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:57:25 PM EST
    From what BTD said above, the delegates have already been selected, and are for Obama. Since the vast majority of the uncommitted voters probably preferred either Obama or Edwards, that's probably as fair a guess as to the voter's will as we're going to get out of this mess.

    Fortunately, the original reason for the punishment has been obviated by reality--I doubt, after this year, that we'll see the same "race to the front" again!


    hmmm (none / 0) (#18)
    by CanadianDem on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:29:19 PM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:50 PM EST
    Really classless post, but about what I'd expect from that blogger.  You are OT however.

    OT (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:02:57 PM EST
    And besides, how much of Obama's cash cow goes to his Executive staff?  Are they struggling families?  

    Rule Change #162 (none / 0) (#19)
    by Laureola on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:31:20 PM EST

    Yes, this is a good idea. (none / 0) (#20)
    by masslib on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:33:18 PM EST

    How are uncommitted delegates selected? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:43:37 PM EST

    Through conventions (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    They have ALREADY been selected.

    Right... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:57:47 PM EST
    ...okay, but how are they selected? Or, if this will get this answered, how were they selected?

    someone picked the short straw? (none / 0) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:01:59 PM EST
    Isn't there some sort of list they have set up of people who are interested or willing to go to the convention--assembly folks and the like?

    In my state, we have the names in parentheses next to the candidate's name:

    Edwards (Michael Peterson)

    and you get to pick the various ones you want to go.


    Well (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:02:41 PM EST
    I believe this is what you are looking for.

    Haha... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:12:05 PM EST
    ...well, yes, that's probably got the answers I'm after, but I was definitely not hoping to read that much.

    I read it though, and I still am not sure how they're picked. Or, at the least, how they're picked to represent anything more than the DNC's wishes. I don't understand this process.

    People that voted uncommitted in Michigan apparently have no real representation (only a negotiated one based on polling and/or DNC political maneuvering).


    Just so I'm not accused of being wily here... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:58 PM EST
    ...it seems odd that people so interested in representing the will of the people -- voters undoubtedly mostly not for Hillary -- would so willingly acquiesce all those votes to some DNC-elected/selected delegates, you know?

    And so that's my point.


    To me, it seems odd that someone (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:22:08 AM EST
    so interested in this wouldn't know that's how it's done in your state, too, just about wherever you are.  Delegates to the national party convention are picked by state parties from among those picked by county parties.  

    How did you think delegates were picked?  Off the street?  They're people involved in the party.


    Delegates... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:24:31 AM EST
    ...picked (pledged) for a certain candidate are one thing. That's the sort of stupid detached process used for electoral votes in the federal system, I get that.

    The process for picking delegates for NO candidate is something else. That's obviously a strange role for a party.



    "...at the convention." (none / 0) (#65)
    by Addison on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    They (none / 0) (#101)
    by Emma on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:39:20 PM EST
    were elected at County Conventions by Dem Party members on April 19, 2008.  It seems to be how everybody does it.

    Right right right... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Addison on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:03 AM EST
    ...but Hillary delegates are normally elected based on the vote for Hillary, and Obama delegates are normally elected based on the vote for Obama, my concern is that it's unclear how on Earth uncommitted delegates are picked.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#139)
    by Emma on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:59:38 AM EST
    I wasn't there, sorry.  All I know is what the MI Dem party told me in an email.

    An Alternative (none / 0) (#43)
    by Spike on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    Since the votes in both Michigan and Florida were invalid before they were cast, each state should get it's full allotment of delegates but they should be apportioned to each candidate based on that candidate's share of total pledged delegates when the last primary is over in June. That way each state is fully represented and it's equally fair to both candidates.

    Yes of Course (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:54:52 PM EST
    Obama should fight for that solution all the way to the end as it is the only fair solution.

    Please, Sen. Obama, take a stand!!!


    I think that is the most arbitrary (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MarkL on Thu May 22, 2008 at 10:56:11 PM EST
    "solution" i have read yet.

    And that would make them (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:26:26 AM EST
    entirely redundant with no impact whatsoever.  What a solution -- straight out of a dictatorship manual.

    Btw, those votes never were invalid.  They were validated by their state secretaries of state -- and counted by their states.  (Other issues on the ballots were not "invalid," they made a difference.)

    They just were not counted by the Dem party.  Now, doesn't that seem odd for the Dems to do, not count entirely valid votes?


    President McCain (none / 0) (#74)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:15:30 PM EST
    All this talk of leaving delegates uncommitted and delaying the outcome until the convention is a dangerous game. We need a nominee and soon, otherwise we can expect President McCain to be sworn in next January.

    Hopefully the RBC meeting will do the right thing and bring closure to this wretched mess of a primary.

    Before the final primary? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:16:58 PM EST
    Err (none / 0) (#93)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:29:08 PM EST
    I mean closure to the MI/FL issues that are in limbo and sucking all the oxygen out of campaigning against McCain. I'm sure we can wait a few more days for the last primary.

    This entire thread is talking about (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:40 AM EST
    the meeting by the Dems to resolve the issue.  

    Why are you talking about not doing so and leaving MI and FL unresolved until the convention?  You don't really want the Dems to meet to resolve this, little more than a week from now?  It is so wearying to read these posts that reverse into virual pretzels.  What the heck do you really want?


    No more dangerous than awarding votes (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:22:06 PM EST
    to someone who hasn't earned them and has garnered ill will by insisting he is entitled to them despite that fact.

    There needs to be a compromise (none / 0) (#109)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:49:49 PM EST
    The nomination needs to get wrapped up if we want any hope of electing a Democrat, and that means forging a compromise between the two camps. The nature of compromise is that both sides have to give up something, and neither side is 100% happy with what they get. But an imperfect outcome is vastly preferable to continued limbo and a late kickoff to the general election. The Democrats need to beat John McCain, and that means starting soon. We can't have more months of the circular firing squad until the convention.

    This is larger than Clinton or Obama. This is about fixing the damage of the last 8 years. If we can't clean our house and make concessions on both sides, then it's going to be a very bad 4 years.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#140)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:02:34 AM EST
    This is exactly how I feel about it. A compromise is the way forward. Neither side will be completely happy, but it will allow us to move forward and defeat McCain. This is the nature of compromise. Think back to our nations history. None of the founding fathers got everthing they wanted in the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights for that matter). Compromise was what allowed us to create a new nation. And compromise is what we need now.

    I don't think any of us (or the campaigns themselves, for that matter) like this situation. There are valid points on both sides of this arguement. All candidates agreed to the rules prior to the campaign. And yes, we would all prefer all state delegates to be seated. But the truth is--especially in Michigan--that things were royally f**ked up.

    Instead of going round and round here and on other blogs. Why don't we let the committee make its decision and agree to all support that decision whatever it is. If they decide to seat all the delegates exactly as the Clinton campaign would want, then fine...I won't like it, but I will eat it and move on. If they choose to stick with the original rules and leave out MI and FL, then fine, Clinton supporters should live with that and move on. If the committee decides on some middle ground compromise, then so be it.

    The point here is that in the end it far more importnat that we unite the party and put our energy toward defeating McCain.


    There is in all likelihood (none / 0) (#157)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:49:56 AM EST
    not going to be a compromise(and particularly not one that is going to hand the nomination to Obama). This will go to the convention. Personally I don't think Obama is going to win the GE(and I teeter with whether or not to vote for him if he does win the noination) and I don't think the superdelegates are going to choose Clinton so I'm gettig used to the idea of 4 bad years.

    Better McCain than Obama! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by RalphB on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:27:03 PM EST
    Good luck with that (none / 0) (#98)
    by s5 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:37:59 PM EST
    This is about electing the Democrat. Anyone who would prefer McCain and his disastrous policies has no business telling the rest of us how to nominate our candidate.

    Where I disagree with most of the community here is whether Obama or Hillary would be the better Democrat. But most of us agree that we need a Democrat as president, and I would be happy to elect either of the two over McCain. But if I read an argument (like her "take it to the convention" argument) that could potentially lead to President McCain, then I'm going to call it out as harmful.


    You apparently do not realize that (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:34:25 AM EST
    it's going to the convention, by almost all odds.  Is Obama really going to get hundreds of super-delegates who haven't committed after all this time to do so?  Then why didn't they do so before?

    Neither candidate can do it with pledged delegates, no matter what the meeting decides a week from now -- that is, unless Prima Donna Brazile pushes through another inane amendment to make it worse.  I wouldn't put it past her to decide that that only thing to do is double the votes of all Obama delegates.


    until the final votes come in. Since this historic contest is as close as it is and because passions are so inflamed, to do otherwise would be seen as meddling. So, they wait until the final votes on June 3. But I do not think enough supers will be willing to reverse the pledged delegate leader.

    And again, I would just say that we should let the rules committee make its final ruling and abide by it, whichever way they go. If they decide to seat the delegates in a way most favorable to Clinton, fine. If they decide to abide by the rules established before the campaign started and not seat them, fine. If they decide on a compromise, fine. There is no way we can satisfy everyone, but we all should let the ruling stand and move on for the greater good of the party and the country.



    This is silly (none / 0) (#112)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:54:33 PM EST
    This race isn't going to the convention.  So saying that the Uncommitteds stay uncommitted is the same as saying they don't count.  

    The solution to the problem is quite simple.  Seat Florida as is.  Seat Michigan as is.  Get rid of the SuperDelegates.  The MOST democratic option available at this point.  

    Let the pledged delegates decide rather than a group of self-serving superdelegates.  

    Oh the irony... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:41 AM EST
    ...of this comment:

     "You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?" Ickes replied, "What has changed is that now we are behind." ---Harold Ickes

     I haven't read that one, but it speaks to the problems with this entire campaign.  It was built on an arrogant presumption that it was inevitable.  They never cared about MI and FL, just about the ability of Senator Clinton to carry it in the GE.  Which is what makes the concern about voters so laughable.  

    So you admit it (none / 0) (#152)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:18:32 AM EST
    His name was on the ballot and he took an affirmative action to REMOVE it from there.  He made a conscious decision to take it off - it didn't happen "just because".

    Thanks for proving our point!

    Obama already has... (none / 0) (#156)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:23:24 AM EST
    ...31 of the uncommitted delegates from Michigan, due to the 1st selection convention there(so I've been informed).  Per Sen. Clinton's prior comments, delegates aren't legally bound to vote for whom they're pledged too, so based on Team Clinton's own extremely consistent standards, those 31 delegates are free to openly endorse Obama at any time.

    Hmm.  67+31 = 98.  Minimum Obama pickup of the remaining 86 pledged delegates is 32.  That's +130 to his total of 1657.5.  Pledged delegate majority including FL/MI is 1783.5.  His minimum total of pledged delegates from all this would be 1787.5, giving him a majority of pledged delegates.

    He'd also have at least 2106 total delegates, and need only another 103 out of the remaining 284 on the table.  He's likely to pick up at least half of the remaining 20 Edwards delegates, half of the remaining 24 uncommitteds, and half of the remaining unpicked 37 add-on delegates.  That would reduce the number of supers he needs to about 60.  He'll also get the Pelosi Club supers, so really, all he needs to close this out is about another 50 supers.

    And that's under a best case scenario for Clinton.

    MI delegates (none / 0) (#159)
    by melro on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    It sounds like a good idea, but Obama should get zip here. I am a Michigan voter. Why should Obama claim all of the uncommitted votes like they were all actually for him? It was early in the game when we had our primary in January! Uncommitted could have meant Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Biden. All 4 candidates that left their names off our ballot had the opportunity to simply file paperwork just 10 days before our primary to be a write in vote, in which case, Obama supporters, or Edwards supporters could have simply checked the other box, and written OBAMA or whoever and it would have been counted as such.

    Obama missed not ONE but TWO chances to get on MI's ballot. MI's senator Levin and the head of our DNC announced to Howard Dean our intention to jump up our primary since NH didn't play by the rules. That left plenty of time for Obama or anyone one else to file papers as a write in. He would have kept his name off the ballot as the DNC urged, but still allowed his votes to be counted by leaving it up to his supporters to  write in his name.

    The rest of the country needs to know that this is was happened here in Michigan. Hillary is the not the one running around last minute whining about MI, it's Obama. He screwed up royal. And quite frankly, every time he comes here, he insults the auto industry, and seems to be unempathetic to the plight of workers tied to that industry.

    Truth be known, since he put his name on FL but not on MI, I think his camp purposely hid behind the DNC's lopsided justice for MI to distance him from one of the largest populations of African Americans in the country, which simultaneously disenfranchised him from the blue collar workers here. It was early in the game and he did not want to be associated by color. It wasn't until he picked up steam and African Americans were saying he wasn't black enough that he engaged the African American community.